The Death of Cycle to Work?

[Jezston]

That's very interesting - cheers.

Now, I THINK that perhaps my employer might actually be doing this, or be happy to. I know they already will adapt to whatever scheme the shop uses - I recall Evans being initially suspicious that my company could buy my bike through them if they were already using other schemes for other shops.

The admin staff are as confused as to what this will mean as I am.

 

[Iainj837]

I think the cycle2work scheme is a brill idea but it is open to abuse,
I know 1 guy that got a bike though the scheme, he rode it a couple of times then it was left in his garden and he never seemed to use it again.
I have had 2 bikes though the scheme my lastest is worth about £850 that's with light helmet and computer.
Once the 18 months I think is up I will, I will do it again (if they continue to do the scheme)

 

[DrSquirrel]

Iainj837,
You could argue that he wouldn't have bought the bike if he didn't have the scheme thus would never have paid the tax anyway.
This way, puts some of his money to the bike shop and our economy (as much of it that stays in this country of course).

There is no reason to use an outside administrator. However in larger businesses/organisations with complicated internal structures it may well make more sense to use someone like cyclescheme to administer the scheme rather than keep it internal & lose a fair amount of workers time dealing with the paperwork generated internal red tape.

It's only red tape if you make it red tape, salary sacrifice is common, and making a payment (once) to an outside company for the bike is no different than adding a new supplier. A company could make it easier for themselves to only allow a local shop etc...

 

[Tynan]

taxpayers money being used to buy a bike that isn't used to ride to work is an abuse straight off as far as I'm concerned

 

[MacB]

taxpayers money being used to buy a bike that isn't used to ride to work is an abuse straight off as far as I'm concerned

Yep, straightlaced as this view may seem it's spot on, though there are arguments to be made around just getting people riding, commuting or otherwise. C2W for a commuting bike, you can even justify a second bike for leisure and as a backup commuter. Purely for leisure is an abuse and tax dodge.

 

[Downward]

Yep, straightlaced as this view may seem it's spot on, though there are arguments to be made around just getting people riding, commuting or otherwise. C2W for a commuting bike, you can even justify a second bike for leisure and as a backup commuter. Purely for leisure is an abuse and tax dodge.

Yeah the employer should choose say 1 day per month where someone sits at the bike park for a couple of hours in the morning and notes down the bikes so that the person buying the bike has to actually ride it to work. No shows x amount of times and it's cough up the tax and ni you have dodged.

 

[Tynan]

typical of the government pissing money away, it stuns me that people are allowed to buy repeatedly on the scheme while other people can't at all merely because their firm doesn't offer the scheme, people congratulating themselves on their third or fourth bike on the cheme and planning their next one boils my piss

 

[GrasB]

It's only red tape if you make it red tape, salary sacrifice is common, and making a payment (once) to an outside company for the bike is no different than adding a new supplier. A company could make it easier for themselves to only allow a local shop etc...

The problem is the way some organisations deal with assets. If I go outside cyclescheme (which I can do if I want to) the paper work for the actual C2W bit is minimal. The fun comes in with dealing with the bike the procedure is as follows when adhering to the internal purchasing procedures:

• Create a loan account if not made for the person
• Issue the loan for the bike it's self
• enter the bike as an asset
• recover the loan cost from the departmental general expenses account
• issue an invoice to payroll for the value of the bike
• remove the bike from the asset register

If the value is less than £300 only the first 2 apply & then it's really simple.

 

[Norm]

I can't help but feel that your ire is misplaced, Tynan.

If the government sets up a legitimate way to reduce the cost of getting into cycling but some employers don't have a scheme, then I don't think the target should be those who have benefited.

If the value is less than £300 only the first 2 apply & then it's really simple.

That was initially an issue for me too. But the company only capitalised assets over £1,000, which was a handy limit because it tied with the maximum allowable value before getting a consumer credit licence.

 

[marinyork]

typical of the government pissing money away, it stuns me that people are allowed to buy repeatedly on the scheme while other people can't at all merely because their firm doesn't offer the scheme, people congratulating themselves on their third or fourth bike on the cheme and planning their next one boils my piss

As usually happens a lot of it is benefits for those that don't really need it. Some of the comments on this thread lack a bit of perspective, even if the bike cost more through the scheme a lot of poorer people would love to be able to get a bike with spread payments over 12 months interest free credit - even for 'cheaper bikes'.

 

[GrasB]

That was initially an issue for me too. But the company only capitalised assets over £1,000, which was a handy limit because it tied with the maximum allowable value before getting a consumer credit licence.

The problem is we have to transfer the ownership of the bike to the payrol dep for accounting reasons, This in turn means it has to be an asset if more than a £300. With the cyclescheme it doesn't go through the departmental accounts so the standard fixed asset limit of £2000 applies.

 

[The Jogger]

our c2w is ongoing at the minute, £20 or 3%
I might get a cheapie road bike, just got to break the news to mrs j

 

[Norm]

As usually happens a lot of it is benefits for those that don't really need it. Some of the comments on this thread lack a bit of perspective, even if the bike cost more through the scheme a lot of poorer people would love to be able to get a bike with spread payments over 12 months interest free credit - even for 'cheaper bikes'.

+1 Although I think the differences will be reduced. Certainly if they start enforcing the regulations, as (assuming the numbers I have previously posted are close) it would "only" result in a saving of about 20% anyway.

I have talked my LBS down most of that amount without all the hassle of committing to working for the same employer for the rental period and the uncertainty of the ending valuation.

 

[Tynan]

I can't help but feel that your ire is misplaced, Tynan.

If the government sets up a legitimate way to reduce the cost of getting into cycling but some employers don't have a scheme, then I don't think the target should be those who have benefited.

I blame the govt for setting up a scheme in such a way that it can be implemented or not by employers

I blame them for setting it up in such a way that people can buy bikes repeatedly without ever showing that any of them are for commuting

And I blame people for taking advantage of such a lax and wasteful scheme because they can, after all, they're not resposnisible are they?

The only losers are the taxpayers so what the hell?

All part of the fabulous £6B to be saved from 'efficiency savings' perhaps

 

[chap]

MC's expenses

I blame the govt for setting up a scheme in such a way that it can be implemented or not by employers

I blame them for setting it up in such a way that people can buy bikes repeatedly without ever showing that any of them are for commuting

And I blame people for taking advantage of such a lax and wasteful scheme because they can, after all, they're not resposnisible are they?

The only losers are the taxpayers so what the hell?

All part of the fabulous £6B to be saved from 'efficiency savings' perhaps

I think it served its purpose. Let's be fair, it was never an incentive to spur the 2-wheeled Green revolution, nor was it an equaliser for the working class, and the impecunious, to be mobile in spite of soaring petrol prices and exorbitant poorly-run monopolistic public-transport (as is the case in most of the South East, out with the M25)

This was just another box ticker, if you were one of the lucky middle-class people whose boss fancied a ride in the park every other weekend, the company adopted the scheme under the pretext of carbon-neutral banality. One could claim the progressive edge whilst their car-parks remained full to the tilt and its employees saved a bit of cash (and in many cases made a bit) all at the tax payers expense.

As this is not the P&L, I shalln't let this degenerate into a rant, but will sum up by saying this shambles of a scheme is very much reflective of the previous party in charge: taking the lazy way out, neglecting those they claim to represent, and providing yet another unessential nicety for the well off. Enjoy the scheme whilst it lasts, is sounded like a good little earner.